Black Beans vs Pinto Beans – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing black beans to pinto beans, we picked the pinto beans.
Why?
Both of these beans have won all their previous comparisons, so it’s no surprise that this one was very close. Despite their different appearance, taste, and texture, their nutritional profiles are almost identical:
In terms of macros, pinto beans have a tiny bit more protein, carbs, and fiber. So, a nominal win for pinto beans, but again, the difference is very slight.
When it comes to vitamins, black beans have more of vitamins A, B1, B3, and B5, while pinto beans have more of vitamins B2, B6, B9, C, E, K and choline. Superficially, again this is nominally a win for pinto beans, but in most cases the differences are so slight as to be potentially the product of decimal place rounding.
In the category of minerals, black beans have more calcium, copper, iron, and phosphorus, while pinto beans have more magnesium, manganese, selenium, and zinc. That’s a 4:4 tie, but the only one with a meaningful margin of difference is selenium (of which pinto beans have 4x more), so we’re calling this one a very modest win for pinto beans.
All in all, adding these up makes for a “if we really are pressed to choose” win for pinto beans, but honestly, enjoy either in accordance with your preference (this writer prefers black beans!), or better yet, both.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The DASH Diet Mediterranean Solution – by Dr. Marla Heller
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Sometimes, an author releases a series of books that could have just been one book, with various padding and rehashes. In some cases, naming no names
Dr. Mark Hyman, it means we have to carefully pick out the honestly very good and highly recommendable ones from the “you just republished for the extra income, didn’t you?” ones.In this case, today’s book is part of a series of books with very similar titles, and this one seems the most useful as a standalone book
The Mediterranean Diet is still the scientific world’s current “gold standard” in terms of most evidence-based diet for general health, and as we’ve written about, it can be tweaked to focus on being best for [your particular concern here]. In this case, it’s the DASH variant of the Mediterranean Diet, considered best for heart health specifically.
The style is repetitive, and possibly indicative of the author getting into a habit of having to pad books. Nevertheless, saying things too often is better than forgetting to say them, so hey. On which note, it is more of an educational book than a cookbook—it does have recipes, but not many.
Bottom line: if you’d like an introduction to the DASH variant of the Mediterranean Diet, this book will get you well-acquainted.
Click here to check out The DASH Diet Mediterranean Solution, and learn all about it!
Share This Post
-
Pelvic Floor Exercises (Not Kegels!) To Prevent Urinary Incontinence
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s a common threat, and if you think it couldn’t happen to you, then well, just wait. Happily, Dr. Christine Pieton, PT, DPT, a sport & women’s health physical therapist, has advice:
On the ball!
Or rather, we’re going to be doing ball-squeezing here, if you’ll pardon the expression. You will need a soccer-ball sized ball to squeeze.
Ball-squeeze breathing: lie on your back, ball between your knees, and inhale deeply, expanding your torso. Exhale, pressing your knees into the ball, engaging your abdominal muscles from lower to upper. Try to keep your spine long and avoid your pelvis tucking under during the exhalation.
Ball-squeeze bridge: lie on your back, ball between your knees, inhale to prepare, and then exhale, pressing up into a bridge, maintaining a firm pressure on the ball. Inhale as you lower yourself back down.
Ball-squeeze side plank: lie on your side this time, ball between your knees, supporting forearm under your shoulder, as in the video thumbnail. Inhale to prepare, and then exhale, lifting your hip a few inches off the mat. Inhale as you lower yourself back down.
Ball-squeeze bear plank: get on your hands and knees, ball between your thighs. Lengthen your spine, inhale to prepare, and exhale as you bring your knees just a little off the floor. Inhale as you lower yourself back down.
For more details and tips on each of these, plus a visual demonstration, plus an optional part 2 video with more exercises that aren’t ball-squeezes this time, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Psst… A Word To The Wise About UTIs
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Mythbusting The Mask Debate
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Mythbusting The Mask Debate
We asked you for your mask policy this respiratory virus season, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- A little under half of you said you will be masking when practical in indoor public places
- A little over a fifth of you said you will mask only if you have respiratory virus symptoms
- A little under a fifth of you said that you will not mask, because you don’t think it helps
- A much smaller minority of you (7%) said you will go with whatever people around you are doing
- An equally small minority of you said that you will not mask, because you’re not concerned about infections
So, what does the science say?
Wearing a mask reduces the transmission of respiratory viruses: True or False?
True…with limitations. The limitations include:
- The type of mask
- A homemade polyester single-sheet is not the same as an N95 respirator, for instance
- How well it is fitted
- It needs to be a physical barrier, so a loose-fitting “going through the motions” fit won’t help
- The condition of the mask
- And if applicable, the replaceable filter in the mask
- What exactly it has to stop
- What kind of virus, what kind of viral load, what kind of environment, is someone coughing/sneezing, etc
More details on these things can be found in the link at the end of today’s main feature, as it’s more than we could fit here!
Note: We’re talking about respiratory viruses in general in this main feature, but most extant up-to-date research is on COVID, so that’s going to appear quite a lot. Remember though, even COVID is not one beast, but many different variants, each with their own properties.
Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is “it does help, but is not a magical amulet”:
- 2021: Effectiveness of Face Masks in Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Model-Based Analysis
- 2022: Why Masks are Important during COVID‐19 Pandemic
- 2023: The mitigating effect of masks on the spread of COVID-19
Wearing a mask is actually unhygienic: True or False?
False, assuming your mask is clean when you put it on.
This (the fear of breathing more of one’s own germs in a cyclic fashion) was a point raised by some of those who expressed mask-unfavorable views in response to our poll.
There have been studies testing this, and they mostly say the same thing, “if it’s clean when you put it on, great, if not, then well yes, that can be a problem”:
❝A longer mask usage significantly increased the fungal colony numbers but not the bacterial colony numbers.
Although most identified microbes were non-pathogenic in humans; Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Cladosporium, we found several pathogenic microbes; Bacillus cereus, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Aspergillus, and Microsporum.
We also found no associations of mask-attached microbes with the transportation methods or gargling.
We propose that immunocompromised people should avoid repeated use of masks to prevent microbial infection.❞
Source: Bacterial and fungal isolation from face masks under the COVID-19 pandemic
Wearing a mask can mean we don’t get enough oxygen: True or False?
False, for any masks made-for-purpose (i.e., are by default “breathable”), under normal conditions:
- COVID‐19 pandemic: do surgical masks impact respiratory nasal functions?
- Performance Comparison of Single and Double Masks: Filtration Efficiencies, Breathing Resistance and CO2 Content
However, wearing a mask while engaging in strenuous best-effort cardiovascular exercise, will reduce VO₂max. To be clear, you will still have more than enough oxygen to function; it’s not considered a health hazard. However, it will reduce peak athletic performance:
…so if you are worrying about whether the mask will impede you breathing, ask yourself: am I engaging in an activity that requires my peak athletic performance?
Also: don’t let it get soaked with water, because…
Writer’s anecdote as an additional caveat: in the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, I had a simple cloth mask on, the one-piece polyester kind that we later learned quite useless. The fit wasn’t perfect either, but one day I was caught in heavy rain (I had left it on while going from one store to another while shopping), and suddenly, it fitted perfectly, as being soaked through caused it to cling beautifully to my face.
However, I was now effectively being waterboarded. I will say, it was not pleasant, but also I did not die. I did buy a new mask in the next store, though.
tl;dr = an exception to “no it won’t impede your breathing” is that a mask may indeed impede your breathing if it is made of cloth and literally soaked with water; that is how waterboarding works!
Want up-to-date information?
Most of the studies we cited today were from 2022 or 2023, but you can get up-to-date information and guidance from the World Health Organization, who really do not have any agenda besides actual world health, here:
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Masks | Frequently Asked Questions
At the time of writing this newsletter, the above information was last updated yesterday.
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Women want to see the same health provider during pregnancy, birth and beyond
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Hazel Keedle, Western Sydney University and Hannah Dahlen, Western Sydney University
In theory, pregnant women in Australia can choose the type of health provider they see during pregnancy, labour and after they give birth. But this is often dependent on where you live and how much you can afford in out-of-pocket costs.
While standard public hospital care is the most common in Australia, accounting for 40.9% of births, the other main options are:
- GP shared care, where the woman sees her GP for some appointments (15% of births)
- midwifery continuity of care in the public system, often called midwifery group practice or caseload care, where the woman sees the same midwife of team of midwives (14%)
- private obstetrician care (10.6%)
- private midwifery care (1.9%).
Given the choice, which model would women prefer?
Our new research, published BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, found women favoured seeing the same health provider throughout pregnancy, in labour and after they have their baby – whether that’s via midwifery group practice, a private midwife or a private obstetrician.
Assessing strengths and limitations
We surveyed 8,804 Australian women for the Birth Experience Study (BESt) and 2,909 provided additional comments about their model of maternity care. The respondents were representative of state and territory population breakdowns, however fewer respondents were First Nations or from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds.
We analysed these comments in six categories – standard maternity care, high-risk maternity care, GP shared care, midwifery group practice, private obstetric care and private midwifery care – based on the perceived strengths and limitations for each model of care.
Overall, we found models of care that were fragmented and didn’t provide continuity through the pregnancy, birth and postnatal period (standard care, high risk care and GP shared care) were more likely to be described negatively, with more comments about limitations than strengths.
What women thought of standard maternity care in hospitals
Women who experienced standard maternity care, where they saw many different health care providers, were disappointed about having to retell their story at every appointment and said they would have preferred continuity of midwifery care.
Positive comments about this model of care were often about a midwife or doctor who went above and beyond and gave extra care within the constraints of a fragmented system.
The model of care with the highest number of comments about limitations was high-risk maternity care. For women with pregnancy complications who have their baby in the public system, this means seeing different doctors on different days.
Some respondents received conflicting advice from different doctors, and said the focus was on their complications instead of their pregnancy journey. One woman in high-risk care noted:
The experience was very impersonal, their focus was my cervix, not preparing me for birth.
Why women favoured continuity of care
Overall, there were more positive comments about models of care that provided continuity of care: private midwifery care, private obstetric care and midwifery group practice in public hospitals.
Women recognised the benefits of continuity and how this included informed decision-making and supported their choices.
The model of care with the highest number of positive comments was care from a privately practising midwife. Women felt they received the “gold standard of maternity care” when they had this model. One woman described her care as:
Extremely personable! Home visits were like having tea with a friend but very professional. Her knowledge and empathy made me feel safe and protected. She respected all of my decisions. She reminded me often that I didn’t need her help when it came to birthing my child, but she was there if I wanted it (or did need it).
However, this is a private model of care and women need to pay for it. So there are barriers in accessing this model of care due to the cost and the small numbers working in Australia, particularly in regional, rural and remote areas, among other barriers.
Women who had private obstetricians were also positive about their care, especially among women with medical or pregnancy complications – this type of care had the second-highest number of positive comments.
This was followed by women who had continuity of care from midwives in the public system, which was described as respectful and supportive.
However, one of the limitations about continuity models of care is when the woman doesn’t feel connected to her midwife or doctor. Some women who experienced this wished they had the opportunity to choose a different midwife or doctor.
What about shared care with a GP?
While shared care between the GP and hospital model of care is widely promoted in the public maternity care system as providing continuity, it had a similar number of negative comments to those who had fragmented standard hospital care.
Considering there is strong evidence about the benefits of midwifery continuity of care, and this model of care appears to be most acceptable to women, it’s time to expand access so all Australian women can access continuity of care, regardless of their location or ability to pay.
Hazel Keedle, Senior Lecturer of Midwifery, Western Sydney University and Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Spirulina vs Nori – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing spirulina to nori, we picked the nori.
Why?
In the battle of the seaweeds, if spirulina is a superfood (and it is), then nori is a super-dooperfood. So today is one of those “a very nutritious food making another very nutritious food look bad by standing next to it” days. With that in mind…
In terms of macros, they’re close to identical. They’re both mostly water with protein, carbs, and fiber. Technically nori is higher in carbs, but we’re talking about 2.5g/100g difference.
In the category of vitamins, spirulina has more vitamin B1, while nori has a lot more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, E, K, and choline.
When it comes to minerals, it’s a little closer but still a clear win for nori; spirulina has more copper, iron, and magnesium, while nori has more calcium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc.
Want to try some nori? Here’s an example product on Amazon 😎
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
21% Stronger Bones in a Year at 62? Yes, It’s Possible (No Calcium Supplements Needed!) ← nori was an important part of the diet enjoyed here
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Drug & Supplement Combo That Reverses Aging
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
So far, its effects have been dramatic (in a good way) in mice; human trials are now underway.
How does it work?
It builds from previous work, in which a Japanese research team created an “anti-aging vaccine”, that responded to a problem more specific than aging as a whole, namely atherosclerosis.
They found that a certain* protein was upregulated (i.e., it was made at a greater rate resulting in greater quantities) in patients (mouse and human alike) with atherosclerosis. So, they immunized the mice against that protein, and long story short, everything improved for them, from their atherosclerosis to general markers of aging—including growing back fur that had been lost due to age-related balding (just like in humans). They also lived longer, as is to be expected of a mouse who is now biologically younger.
*To avoid being mysterious: it was glycoprotein nonmetastatic melanoma protein B, known to its friends as GPNMB.
You may be wondering: how can one be immunized against a protein? If so, do bear in mind, a virus is also a protein. In this case, they developed an RNA vaccine, that works in a similar way to the COVID vaccines we all know and love (albeit with a different target).
You can read about this in abundant detail here: Senolytic vaccination improves normal and pathological age-related phenotypes and increases lifespan in progeroid mice
Hot on the heels of that, new approaches were found, including…
The combination
We’ll not keep you waiting; the combination is dasatinib plus quercetin, or else fisetin alone.
It’s about killing senescent (aging) “zombie cells” while sparing healthy cells, which that drug (dasatinib) and those supplements (quercetin and fisetin) do.
The researchers noted:
❝Senescent cells are resistant to apoptosis, which is governed through the upregulation of senescent cell anti-apoptotic pathways (SCAPs). Compounds were subsequently identified that disrupted the SCAPs, inducing death of senescent cells while leaving healthy cells unaffected. Forty-six potential senolytic agents were discovered through this process. To advance translational efforts, the majority of research has focused on agents with known safety profiles and limited off-target effects (Kirkland and Tchkonia, 2020).
The best characterized senolytic agents are dasatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for use in humans for cancer treatment, and quercetin, a naturally occurring plant flavonoid. The agents have a synergistic effect, making their combination more potent for senescent cell clearance (Zhu et al., 2015). As senescent cells do not divide and accumulate over a period of weeks, they can be administered using an intermittent approach, which further serves to reduce the risk of side effects (Kirkland and Tchkonia, 2020).
In preclinical trials, the combination of dasatinib and quercetin (D + Q) have been found to alleviate numerous chronic medical conditions including vascular stiffness, osteoporosis, frailty, and hepatic stenosis❞
Source: A geroscience motivated approach to treat Alzheimer’s disease: Senolytics move to clinical trials
As to how they expanded on this research:
❝In our study, oral D + Q were intermittently administered to tau transgenic mice with late-stage pathology (approximated to a 70-year-old human with advanced AD) (Musi et al., 2018). The treatment effectively reduced cellular senescence and associated senescence-associated secretory phenotype incidence. The 35 % reduction in neurofibrillary tangles was accompanied by enhanced neuron density, decreased ventricular enlargement, diminished tau accumulation, and restoration of aberrant cerebral blood flow. A subsequent preclinical study validated the findings, reporting that intermittently administered D + Q cleared senescent cells in the central nervous system, reduced amyloid-β plaques, attenuated neuroinflammation, and enhanced cognition❞
Source: Ibid.
And now taking it to humans:
❝The first clinical trial of D + Q for early-stage Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) has completed enrollment (Gonzales et al., 2021). The primary aim of the open-label pilot study was to examine the central nervous system penetrance of D and Q in a small sample of older adults with early-stage AD (NCT04063124). In addition, two placebo-controlled trials of D + Q for neurodegenerative disease are underway (NCT04685590 and NCT04785300).
One of the trials in development is a multi-site, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of senolytic therapy in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early-stage dementia (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) Global 0.5–1) due to AD (elevated CSF total tau/Aβ42 ratio).
The treatment regimen will consist of 12-weeks of intermittently administered oral D + Q.❞
Source: Ibid.
The study is actually completed now, but its results are not yet published (again, at time of writing). Which means: they have the data, and now they’re writing the paper.
We look forward to providing an update about that, when the paper is published!
In the meantime…
Dasatinib is a drug usually prescribed to people with certain kinds of leukemia, and suffice it to say, it’s prescription-only. And unlike drugs that are often prescribed off-label (such as metformin for weight loss), getting your doctor to prescribe you an anticancer drug is unlikely unless you have the cancer in question.
You may be wondering: how is an anticancer drug helpful against aging? And the answer is that cancer and aging are very interrelated, and both have to do with “these old cells just won’t die, and are using the resources needed for young healthy cells”. So in both cases, killing those “zombie cells” while sparing healthy ones, is what’s needed. However, your doctor will probably not buy that as a reason to prescribe you a drug that is technically chemotherapy.
Quercetin, on the other hand, is a readily-available supplement, as is fisetin, and both have glowing (in a good way) safety profiles.
Want to know more?
You can read more about each of quercetin and fisetin (including how to get them), here:
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
